It’s not that we were truly expecting anything different, but the second day of the Democrat National Convention in Philadelphia basically provided…more of the same.

Just like on the first day, a large group of Bernie Sanders supporters continued their shouting and booing (outside the arena at least), Bernie himself bowed down before the crooked empress, there was a lot of Trump bashing by the speaker line-up and Bill Clinton pulled himself out of mothballs to talk about his classic love story with his wife.

If you believe that one, I’ve got some oceanfront property in Wyoming to sell you.

Hillary was also officially nominated by the traditional means on Tuesday, crossing the delegate vote threshold after Sanders had put her name in nomination. Just like everything else with the Democrats, it was a phony attempt to portray unity where there really isn’t any. The truth is, the party’s anointed establishment candidate beat ONE person for the nomination (and let’s not even talk about the DNC emails here), that guy being 74 year-old self-described socialist Bernie Sanders who isn’t exactly the warmest most likable guy in the world.

Speaking of phony, Bill Clinton droned on during his over forty minutes in primetime talking about how he came to love Hillary and proudly proclaimed “I married my best friend.”

He also tried to pass off Hillary as a change-maker. It didn’t work. Byron York of the Washington Examiner writes, “If there is anyone who can sell change as steadiness, or steadiness as change, it is Bill Clinton. After his speech Tuesday night, there was some difference of opinion on whether he still has the old magic. But to convince voters that Hillary Clinton, running for what amounts to a third term of the Obama administration, is in fact a change maker will perhaps require more magic than Bill ever had.”

Having never really been a fan of Bill’s “magic,” I can’t say whether he still has it. I’ve heard many times he’s the most dynamic presence in a room and we all know he’s a great speaker. No problems complimenting his delivery of speeches. Remember when he declared the “era of Big Government is over”? People actually believed him….some people at least.

But how is anyone to believe Crooked Hillary is really going to change direction from an administration she served in and has been praising since she made the unsurprising announcement she was running for president again early last year?

Not even Bill will be able to sell that one.

Because Bill spoke so long, actress Meryl Streep was the only other speaker in the primetime hour and the Hollywood liberal predictably lauded Clinton for her gender, saying Hillary will be the first female president but she won’t be the last.

I’m not sure I agree with Streep on either point. I don’t think Clinton will be the first woman president because she’s going to lose to Donald Trump; I also think that if Clinton manages to win, she will be the first and last female president because the country will cease to be in recognizable form.

Choked by debt and political correctness, infiltrated by a culture (Sharia) that isn’t compatible with western values and swarmed over by illegal immigration, the government, at some point, will lose its legitimacy. People will revolt in one way or another.

I’m not claiming Donald Trump is the answer to all our problems and I disagree with some of the things he stands for and his fondness for picking fights – but there’s no doubt Trump is the true agent of change in this year’s election.

Lastly on the Democrats, they’re so desperate to provide entertainment at their convention that they even pulled 2004 presidential candidate Howard Dean out of his holding pen in someone’s basement to reenact his famous “scream” from the primaries that year.

“’The choice in this election is clear,’ Dean said later, pointing to a cadre of positions Trump takes, including on taxes, the Islamic State, and health care, once again.”

I agree with Dean for once. The choice is indeed clear and the best person to be elected president this year wasn’t present in Philadelphia on Tuesday night.

Size doesn’t always matter, at least when it comes to convention bounces

Going into Day Three of the Democrat convention and almost a week removed from the Republican hoedown in Cleveland, there seems to be some confusion as to whether or not Donald Trump actually received a polling “bump” as a result of the GOP’s widely covered four-day Trump media extravaganza.

Perhaps the most reliable overall measure of poll standing is the Real Clear Politics average, of course, which on Monday showed Trump with a .2 percent lead over Hillary Clinton in the two-way race but crept up to a .9 percent advantage yesterday, thanks mainly to the inclusion of the CNN/ORC poll that had Trump ahead by three points nationally.

Then another poll was introduced showing Trump with little or no bounce. Lisa Hagen of The Hill reports, “A new NBC News/SurveyMonkey online poll found that presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton leads the GOP nominee by 1 point, 46 percent to 45 percent, the same as in last week’s poll.

As I argued yesterday, all of the polls seem to agree on one thing: the race is very close and could easily change from week to week if not day to day depending on the interest voters assign to the most recent scandal involving Hillary Clinton or the latest Donald Trump tweet that sets off someone in the media or within the walking dead zombie ranks of #NeverTrump.

Our friends in the conservative media who have indelibly attached themselves to the uncompromising notion of never voting for Trump are still writing about him as though he could be stopped by some disembodied spirit you’d find in the new Ghostbusters movie (I haven’t seen it but it actually looks funny) that will cough up green slime on all of us and cure us of our Trump-supporting ills.

As an example, Hillary supporter (or at least it looks like he is) Jason Taylor writes in The Resurgent, “There are many Trump supporters who don’t care if their country be turned into a banana republic, as long as they have their man in the White House, who believes that strength lies in the ability to do what one pleases. It’s all about satisfying their own egos, not about whether the candidate is fittingly qualified or not.”

In other words, we unenlightened individuals will gratefully swallow any lie from Trump just to win a political race. It’s sad that some folks think this way, indeed.

At any rate, knowing full well that many of the Democrat revelers in Philadelphia will end up supporting Hillary in November and the vast majority of conservatives and Republicans will pull the lever for Trump, it’s helpful to know exactly where we are today in trying to plot a course for November to pick up what’s left of the undecided electorate.

The only problem is, no one’s really sure what to make of the race right now, bounce or no bounce.

Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics is as confused as the rest of us, writing, “All it means is that people who thought [Trump] was such a bad candidate that he could never get a bounce – or that he was forever stuck at 40 percent – were off, once again. It doesn’t mean that the naysayers will continue to be off, nor does it mean that Trump has some sort of magical powers that we mere mortals can’t understand. It simply suggests that our internalized biases continue to skew our analysis, and that we have to come up with some way to correct for these.

“No one really knows where the race is going to be in a week, to say nothing of where it will be in November. What I do know is that if you still don’t believe Trump has a very real chance of winning this, you are deeply in denial.”

In his article, Trende talks about how the experts’ analysis of Trump’s candidacy has been wrong literally since the beginning. Trump has confounded respected and supposedly nonpartisan political analysts like Larry Sabato and Nate Silver and defied the establishment pundit class of both parties who have long predicted his demise at almost every stage of the race.

Heck, Trump perplexed me too. I’ve spent much of the past year attempting to forecast where his more conservative rivals would finally make their breakthrough. Trying to predict where Trump would go wrong has almost been like seeing those historic military officers depicted in movies studying a huge map and pointing to a place where the enemy onslaught would best be contained.

So did The Donald really receive a bounce from the Republican convention? It definitely appears as though he did, but even if he didn’t, Trump will continue leading the pundits and pollsters in circles until November comes around and we’ll finally find out for sure how the voters feel about him one way or the other.

The only thing that appears to be certain now is Hillary is a corrupt, awful person and an even worse candidate, so in a binary election, the choice is clear. Donald Trump, for all his multitude of personality flaws and liberal past is without a doubt the best option in 2016.

All roads lead to Pennsylvania for Trump’s best chance to take blue territory

In talking about the national polls and swing state polls and seeing analysts putting together various Electoral College scenarios, it’s become clear that a major point of emphasis for the Trump campaign should be Pennsylvania.

And based on what we’re hearing, even from some Democrats, Trump has a solid chance to pull off what no other Republican politician likely could do in 2016 – win the state.

Doug Palmer of Politico reports on one of those Democrats. “Donald Trump's attacks on trade agreements and promises to uphold ‘law and order’ are attractive to many Pennsylvania voters, putting the state's 20 electoral votes in play in the presidential election, former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said Tuesday.

“’It resonates. There's no question about it,’ Rendell said during an interview at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia with POLITICO…”

Though still most definitely a liberal, Democrat Rendell has proven to be an honest commentator on the politics of his state. His word should be taken at face value.

Of course we already know by now that Trump carried every Pennsylvania county in the Republican primary on April 26, so his position is strong with Republicans and conservatives in the Keystone State. But what is perhaps most surprising/shocking to Democrats is Trump’s ability to make inroads with traditionally Democrat constituencies in most parts of the state.

Brandon Finnigan of National Review writes, “The state of Pennsylvania has changed considerably over the last few decades, and provides a prime opportunity for Donald Trump — if, and only if, he changes some behaviors that will cost him votes in key areas. Given current trends — and presuming that the campaign makes an effort to expand beyond his core voters — I could see Trump winning all but Erie, Lackawanna, Centre, Allegheny, Montgomery, Delaware, and Philadelphia counties, and squeaking by with a 1 to 2 percent victory.”

Finnigan is no Trump fan and is allied with some of the more vocal members of #NeverTrump. But from the tone of his article (and his words) it sounds like he is open to supporting the Republican nominee if Trump is willing to make some shifts in tone.

Finnigan provides an extremely in-depth analysis of Pennsylvania’s voting characteristics, a level of detail that I hope the Trump campaign is replicating in other states. Trump has notoriously eschewed data operations thus far in his campaign, perhaps believing he can produce all the support he’ll need through earned media, but I can’t help but think micro-targeting in the two-person general election is much more important than it proved to be in the multi-candidate primaries.

Elections are kind of like fishing. If you’re a sport fisherman, you use one line and one hook, seeking to catch one fish at a time. But if you’re a commercial fisherman you cast a wide net hoping to bring in a good haul of fish, dozens if not hundreds at a time.

The primaries are more akin to sport fishing. The general election is more like commercial fishing. Trump needs a boat full of voters, because merely mounting one prize on the wall isn’t going to get him to the White House.

Someone needs to get Trump out on a trawler and show him the difference.

Democrats admit they’re worried about more email trouble

For a party that’s achieved so much success through utilizing cutting edge communications technologies in the past two presidential elections, the Democrats have sure become wary of one of the most effective mediums of spreading their message -- their emails.

And it’s not just Crooked Hillary Clinton’s criminal email scandal or the most recent Wikileaks dump that brought down poor DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz that’s getting to them. No, Democrats are worrying about the next round of leaks…what are they hiding?

Peter Schroeder of The Hill reports, “Hillary Clinton's campaign is bracing for the possibility of more damaging emails being leaked to the public as the presidential campaign enters its home stretch.

“Jennifer Palmieri, communications director for Hillary for America, said it’s possible that more emails will be released at a time designed to inflict maximum political pain on Democrats.”

That’s an understatement. That’s what hackers do – create a stir. It’s been widely speculated the Russians or some other foreign entity that likely hacked Hillary’s private email server during her State Department days are going to lay the entire package on America’s front doorstep just prior to November’s election.

I can just see the internal discussions now in “planning” for such a crisis. Picture a bunch of suits and pantsuits sitting around a cluttered conference room openly debating on how to spin the inevitable breach. Makes me chuckle just thinking about it.

Of course, nobody’s advocating for such a thing, but if a new email “dump” happens, at least it will dispel the notion that Crooked Hillary didn’t do anything wrong in her email dealings. The truth is Hillary compromised every American with such callous disregard for sensitive information. She SHOULD have to atone for her wrongdoing, even it’s by means of political embarrassment.

Understandably, Democrats are worried about it. Isn’t it funny how they’re pinning the blame on the leakers (the Russians or whoever actually did it) as opposed to answering for or disavowing what’s actually in the emails themselves? It’s a classic case of the guilty blaming the accuser. But as I’ve been saying a lot lately, that’s what Democrats do.

Strangely enough, the Democrats have a #NeverTrump ally who seems to be on their side in singling out the Russians. Joe Concha of The Hill reports, “Fox News contributor George Will says GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump will not release his tax returns because they may show ‘he is deeply involved in dealing with Russia oligarchs.’

“The claim — which Will could not support with any tangible proof — was made to Bret Baier on Fox News's ‘Special Report’ live from the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia on Monday night. The topic was raised after some Democratic Party officials, including presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, Robby Mook, attempted to connect the Republican presidential nominee to a leak of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails.”

I guess when the Democrats release dirt on Trump or a Republican it’s called “vetting” and when damaging information is released on Democrats they rush to blame the source of the leaks – even making outlandish claims that Trump himself could be involved with it.

It sounds like the plot for a great movie, doesn’t it?

I personally think the Democrats having nothing to worry about. Everyone already knows their candidate is a scofflaw. Her supporters don’t care; the rest of us couldn’t possibly be any more outraged and disgusted than we already are.

Rush says Trump is hack-proof and there’s more out there on Crooked Hillary

Finally today, in case you are worried a similar hack will take place against Donald Trump, radio host Rush Limbaugh says don’t be.

“’Trump does not do email, so there isn't any scoop to get on him,’ Limbaugh said on his radio program. ‘He tweets, he's got a phone, but he doesn't do email. His staff sends around emails for him, but he doesn't do it, for this very reason.’”

Limbaugh went on to doubt the theory that it was the Russians who leaked the recent damning information, speculating it was just as likely some kid in his parents’ basement who found a way to break into the DNC.

And there’s apparently more information out there on the Dems (see previous section), according to Limbaugh.

We’ll have to wait and see what happens regarding Crooked Hillary’s emails in the weeks and months to come. It’s just part of the mystery surrounding the already fascinating 2016 election.

In other words, we unenlightened individuals will gratefully swallow any lie from Trump just to win a political race. It’s sad that some folks think this way, indeed. >

Folks are justified to “think this way” when there is evidence that advocates for Trump declare it inappropriate for conservatives to criticize him. Enter into evidence the following statement:

Bluntly speaking, the only hope social conservatives have in this election is to work for Trump’s victory. It wouldn’t do anyone any good to criticize Trump at this point for something he may or may not believe or something he said 20 years ago.

The days for such critiques are over. Conservatives and Republicans must unite behind Trump now to not only save the conservative cause, but also prevent Hillary from gutting the country.

Once Trump is elected, such criticisms can help point him in the correct policy direction and are therefore once again appropriate. Before that time, they’re just counterproductive to the ultimate goal of defeating Crooked Hillary.

It is not too much to ask a candidate to meet a few minimum standards in order to garner conservative support. Ted Cruz set the standard at freedom and the Constitution. Christian social conservatives think the Ten Commandments form a reasonable minimum standard, which for American politics at this time boils down to four additional key policies: 1) abolishing the murder of innocents, 2) promoting wholesome families, 3) eliminating property theft by government (confiscatory taxes, etc.), and 4) bearing true witness.

It is foolish, as well as unenlightened, to think that Trump will “save the conservative cause”, even if he complies with the minimum standards. Moreover, the conservative cause does not need saving, since it appears to be fairly robust, although less popular than it should be, due to the difficulties of competing with offers of free stuff and promises of dictatorial powers.

So, instead of the conservative cause needing salvation, focus should be placed on saving the country, if it is not too late, already. That requires an educational effort about liberty and Constitutional governance that is bigger than one election. It is a task that Trump seems incompetent to perform. In fact, his presence in the primary race eliminated any opportunity for conservative candidates to effectively deliver those lessons. Unfortunately, they may be lessons that the country will have to learn the hard way, just like almost every previous generation, if they learn them at all.